23rd June 2025
Why the parliamentary votes on abortion and assisted dying are welcome – and significant.
The first thing to assert is that no law has yet been changed by the recent parliamentary votes on abortion and assisted dying . The applicable law today is as it was last week. Votes on bills as they go through parliament do not have legal effect until that bill, by regal legal magic, becomes an Act of Parliament with royal assent.
But.
The parliamentary votes on abortion and in assisted dying are significant and, from a liberal perspective (and this is a liberal legal and constitutional blog), welcome.
They are significant because they (well) signify a change – a break with the hitherto settled law and policy in these areas.
*
In respect of abortion, the key provisions currently in force are in this Victorian legislation, from 1861.
Removing these provisions from the statute books does not, notwithstanding some media coverage to the contrary, legalise abortion. It will still be a criminal offence for a second person to perform an unlawful abortion.
The removal of these provisions, however, would de-criminalise self-induced abortions, where there have been some extraordinarily moving recent cases where the offence has been prosecuted – for example here:
“Though the offence itself was a serious one, and crossed the custody threshold, this was, as we said at the hearing of this appeal, a very sad case that called for compassion, not punishment. And it was one where no useful purpose was served by detaining Ms Foster in custody.
“After assessing harm and culpability, our provisional starting point was one of three years imprisonment, which was reduced to one of 18 months having regard to mitigation, and then to one of 14 months after giving Ms Foster 20 per cent credit for her plea. The length of this sentence meant it could be suspended and we considered that it should be suspended. We have already referred to the exceptionally strong mitigation. Rehabilitation had already been achieved. Ms Foster presented no risk to her family or the wider public, and there was no prospect of a repetition of this offence. By the time of the hearing before us, it was obvious that custody had had a severely detrimental effect on Ms Foster and on her family. The rehabilitation activity requirement of up to 50 days provided her with an opportunity for various interventions in relation to the offence, designed to assist her, including counselling.”
It was monstrous that the defendant in that case, and in similar cases, was ever prosecuted. But such prosecutions were (and are) always possible while the 1861 offences remained (remain) the law of the land.
*
In respect of assisted dying, there are – of course – different views, and many of those opposed to its introduction are sincere and serious.
The perspective of this blog, however, is based on two points – one in principle, and one practical.
The principle is that of self-autonomy: that, as far as possible, it should be for the individual to make decisions about their own lives.
And so the preferences of someone facing an otherwise unavoidably agonising death should be accorded respect and, if possible, given effect.
There is the potential for misuse for others, but this is not itself a reason in and of itself to deny the preferences of someone facing an otherwise unavoidably agonising death to end their own life on their own terms.
It is instead an argument for preventing those abuses, and not for denying the choice to those who want to make that decision for themselves.
The practical point – which often seems missed in the discussion about the proposals – is the that the status quo is itself unsatisfactory, and based on the uncertain but generally widening discretion policy of prosectors on whether to prosecute. At the moment assisted dying to can and does escape prosecution but at the cost of unimaginable legal anxiety to those concerned.
If this proposal – set out in this private members bill which, as Ian Dunt explains, has been impressively piloted through the Commons by Kim Leadbetter MP – is defeated in the House of Lords, as some opposed campaigners are now urging, then this dire status quo will continue – and without any of the safeguards in the bill.
*
Given the force of the illiberal winds blowing through the United Kingdom and the United States, and elsewhere, the sensible decriminalising of people facing the horrible decisions and actions set out above, is a boon.
One may have moral views against abortion and assisted dying, but the intervention of the criminal law in these situations often makes dreadful personal situations far worse.
Neither change is yet on the statute book – and there are those who will work hard to make sure they do not get enacted.
But for the House of Commons to even pass such measures in draft legislation is an important moment.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
I’m just very glad that such legitimately contentious issues (as opposed to issues which are only contentious because of fabricated Culture War nonsense) were afforded such full and comprehensive debate.
Even if no minds were changed by the debate, the wider principle of a deliberative body doing some actual deliberating should be encouraged
About 20 years ago the parents of a friend of mine took in my friend’s grandfather, so they could care for him. He’d been forced to retire early from a workplace injury that got progressively worse. The NHS consistently failed to give him the treatment he needed, citing patients with more urgent needs, until eventually he was unable to care for himself. When I first met him he was a cheerful soul, always pleased to see a new face when they visited.
After a few years he became gradually more withdrawn and quiet and though I continued to visit him right up until the time he finally passed away, for the last 10 years of his life every time I saw him he would be in tears.
He told me how he hated being a burden on his daughter and her husband, how he hated his grandsons watching him “waste away”. He had served the UK valiantly in the Second World War, he had worked hard his entire life and then, when he needed a little bit of understanding and dignity at the end, the UK laws forced him to endure the worst fate of all.
I do understand that a society has to be extremely careful when considering something like assisted dying and must ensure that there are safeguards to protect those who may, for example, become suicidal. But I have to wonder what kind of messed up society we have become when we force people to exist – bed-bound, incontinent, unable to recognise their own children, unable to walk in fresh air, barely able to see, partially deaf… and then turn around and tell ourselves that assisted suicide is “cruel”.
It beggars belief.
It was also very impressive, and reassuring, to see the seriousness with which MPs grappled with the issues. Without the whips there to guide their vote, and with genuine reasons either to support or reject the changes, MPs were obliged to work out their position for themselves. Some took sounding from their constituents. Some explained their reasoning in open letters. Those I have seen all said just how difficult it was to come to a conclusion and how much they respected those who came to a different one.
I am glad for the reasons you have laid out, that the right decisions were made. And I am also glad that the process worked.
I agree very strongly with the thrust of your article.
The key point for me, with my strong religious beliefs, is that while I may believe that my God would prefer a particular course of action, I am certain that s/he would want me to act in full love and sympathy with my neighbour, and not to cast the first, or any subsequent stone. I do not expect the law of my country to align perfectly with my own preferences but to allow me, and all other citizens, to behave in ways that promote the overall ‘life, liberty and happiness’ of our community.
In the case of assisted dying, in particular, I have been, or am, close to three relatives in their 90s. One chose to take her own life when her Parkinson’s and other ailments became unbearable; one sobbed that she never agreed to the weakness and dementia that was overtaking her; and one is still living, unhappy but accepting the gradual loss of her faculties. No law can offer, or impose, the optimal solution to these three cases and there is no ‘good’ outcome but I am sure that each should have the ability to change, or accept, their situation as they prefer.
Maybe interesting to note:
Those who voted to allow assisted dying were very likely also to vote for the abortion-decriminalising amendment.
Those who voted against assisted dying were less likely to vote on the abortion issue, but of those who did, were much more evenly split.
Those few who didn’t vote on assisted dying but did vote on the abortion issue were much more likely to vote for the decriminalising amendment.
Several major outlets have search functions in their reports so readers can see separately how MPs voted on each measure but I’ve put together in one table so people can see for all MPs how each voted on both measures. https://strongerinnos.medium.com/lifen-death-votes-873947ea9780 in case it’s helpful.
Interesting indeed.
When I looked at your summary I could only see the MPs down to Wendy Chamberlain (the second one).
Thank you for this we’ll-timed piece. I enjoyed and agreed with all of it, but, especially two paragraphs in the passage on assisted dying, viz:-
“There is the potential for misuse for others, but this is not itself a reason in and of itself to deny the preferences of someone facing an otherwise unavoidably agonising death to end their own life on their own terms.
It is instead an argument for preventing those abuses, and not for denying the choice to those who want to make that decision for themselves.”
Exactly so.
I support both bills. However, assisted dying is more perplexing because self-autonomy requires the assistance stated, in other words the involvement of at least one other person
Very interesting and glad to see we can still debate matters.
Michael O’Connor presents some interesting data and raises a puzzle in my mind – why did so many of those MPs who voted against assisted dying also choose not to vote on the abortion matter?
I wonder why, I suspect MPs of playing some game of political or voting advantage here. I doubt very much if conscience comes into it. But what is the game?
Ms Leadbetter is the political successor to David Steel. We need more politicians of conscience in the House.